State Intervention in the Economy

In The Atlantic Monthly (subscription required), Jack Beatty has a thoughtful column called "Recharging the L Word" in which he posits that "Democrats must embrace the principle of economic interventionism that lies at the heart of liberalism."

"For the New Dealers "reform" meant reforming capitalism; it meant state intervention in the economy to increase the economic security and individual freedom of ordinary Americans. That idea, a synthesis of populism and progressivism, was called liberalism. Liberals have been in retreat from liberalism for at least a generation. They defend Social Security, but not the principle of intervention behind the New Deal.

snip

Yet the problems the Democrats highlighted in last year's election campaign—from global warming to growing inequality—cannot be managed without state intervention in the economy. Liberals shrink from the "L-word" just when reality has renewed its relevance.

The pollster and political scientist Samuel Lubell famously observed that Americans are ideologically conservative and programmatically liberal. Consequently, liberals have justified economic intervention in pragmatic terms, ceding the ideological high ground to conservatism. But the conservatives in power have demonstrated that the liberal-conservative distinction is not between intervention and laissez-faire. It's between intervening to achieve public benefits that could not be realized through the private market versus intervening to reward special interests. The Republican Party of George W. Bush has lavished billions in subsidies on profitable industries; John McCain refers to the Administration's energy bill as "No lobbyist left behind." Corporations pump millions in campaign contributions into one end of the GOP, and not a few Democratic lawmakers extract billions from the other—in subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory relief. In decrying the resulting budget deficits, the Democrats legitimate the core, "fiscal responsibility" idea of conservatism which is honored only in the breach by conservatives themselves. Having a real conservative party, one that believed in fiscal prudence as the guarantor of laissez-faire, would be nice; antiquity has its charms. But the Democrats should not be that party. What they say about deficits today could come back to haunt them tomorrow, when they will have to borrow to implement policies that—unlike Bush's tax cuts—at least benefit the future generations paying for them."

Fallen Hero

Fallen Hero
Originally uploaded by johneaton

Fallen Hero
More here.

San Francisco Civic Center

Eyes Wide Open at San Francisco Civic Center
Originally uploaded by johneaton.

San Francisco

Eyes Wide Open

eyeswideopen
Originally uploaded by johneaton.

March 26, 2005

Brain Dead

Good News! Billmon is back.

"Washington D.C. (AP) -- In the largest legal action of its kind to date, nearly 300 doctors in the Washington D.C. area have asked a federal court for permission to withdraw food, water and other forms of life support from their patients -- all of them members of the House and Senate Republican caucuses.

In their brief, the doctors contend their patients have lapsed into a "persistent vegetative state," and have shown "absolutely no signs of cognitive brain function" since September of 2001. All hopes for recovery are gone, they added.

Lawyers for family members of the afflicted Senators and Representatives asked the judge to reject the petition, saying the standard for withdrawing life support proposed by the doctors would permit the involuntary euthanization of almost 51% of the voting-age American population.

However, after reviewing the evidence -- House and Senate voting records for the past four years -- the judge agreed to take the matter under advisement.

Associated Press
Doctors Seek 'Mercy Deaths' for GOP Senators, Reps
April 1, 2005"

Unexpected Whiff of Freedom

In Yesterday's New York Times there was an article headlined "Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Mideast." I hope this is true. As readers ponder why this might be true at this time, I would mention that I have always thought that the VCR (combined with internal rot and corruption) brought down the Soviet Union rather than Ronald Reagan's massive arms' buildup. Access to accurate information is one key to people taking power and here technology plays a pivotal role. Consequently, I was drawn to the following passage from yesterday's Times:

"Young protesters have been spurred by the rise of new technology, especially uncensored satellite television, which prevents Arab governments from hiding what is happening on their own streets. The Internet and cellphones have also been deployed to erode censorship and help activists mobilize in ways previous generations never could."

Of course if you really want to know what is going on in the Middle East you should read Juan Cole's Informed Content. This column explains what really causes terrorism in the Middle East: foreign military occupations.

"You want to end terrorism? End unjust military occupations. By all means have Syria conduct an orderly withdrawal from Lebanon if that is what the Lebanese public wants. But Israel needs to withdraw from the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria, as well. The Israeli military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank must be ended. The Russian scorched earth policy in Chechnya needs to stop. Some just disposition of the Kashmir issue must be attained, and Indian enormities against Kashmiri Muslims must stop. The US needs to conduct an orderly and complete withdrawal from Iraq. And when all these military occupations end, there is some hope for a vast decrease in terrorism. People need a sense of autonomy and dignity, and occupation produces helplessness and humiliation. Humiliation is what causes terrorism."

Ouch! Canadian Straight Talk

Former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axeworthy, has published this scathing Open Letter to Condi Rice: "I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a 'liberation war' in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children."

I linked this quote through BoingBoing - A Directory of Wonderful Things but the letter was published in The Winnipeg Free Press.

If America Were Iraq

The Koufax Awards for lefty bloggers have just been announced. The winner of the best single post for 2004 was Juan Cole's post on September 22, 2004, explaining what America would look like today in Iraq's situation. This is particularly appropo considering that yesterday witnessed the single bloodiest suicide bombing of the war with at least 116 dead. I encourage you to read it all but here is just a taste:

"Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?

What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?"